Andrew Leigh

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
SKY NEWSDAY WITH KIERAN GILBERT
THURSDAY, 2 MAY 2024

SUBJECTS: Government’s responsible cost-of-living relief, impact of spending from the states on inflation, lack of competition in the beer industry, applications open for advocates to become designated complainants, Port Macquarie Ironman.

KIERAN GILBERT: Joining me live now in the studio is the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, Andrew Leigh. Thanks for your time. Is this a bit of a worry, the cash splash from the states, Queensland in this case, when it comes to the inflation challenge the Government and the country faces right now?

ANDREW LEIGH: Well, Kieran, I think all relief is welcome for households and all those Queensland households will be seeing tax relief on 1 July, as we put in place a tax cut for all taxpayers. In our last Budget we had the federal support for energy bill relief. That's something we believe is a responsible, targeted cost-of-living measure as we look to work in concert with the Reserve Bank to reduce inflation.

The Hon Julie Collins MP
Minister for Housing
Minister for Homelessness
Minister for Small Business

CONSUMER AND SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCATES TO HAVE SPECIAL POWERS TO RAISE COMPLAINTS

Applications are now open for interested consumer and small business advocates to apply to become a designated complainant – allowing them to submit complaints to the competition and consumer watchdog for response within 90 days.

Labor knows that consumer and small business advocates play an important role in identifying and bringing attention to governments, policy makers and the community on significant and systemic issues impacting Australians.

Designated complaints functions have operated successfully in the United Kingdom for some time, where they are known as ‘super-complaints’.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
ABC CANBERRA – DRIVE WITH ROSS SOLLY
MONDAY, 22 APRIL 2024

SUBJECTS: AI SCAMS, VIOLENT CONTENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, SOCIAL MEDIA AND MENTAL HEALTH, CANBERRA TO SYDNEY RAIL

ROSS SOLLY (HOST): Andrew Leigh, good afternoon to you.

ANDREW LEIGH: Good afternoon, Ross. Great to be with you.

SOLLY: And you too. Andrew Leigh, your government has picked a fight here with Elon Musk. Are you comfortable with taking him on and demanding that he remove videos from his social media platform?

LEIGH: Look, absolutely. Being a billionaire doesn't put you above the law. And in this case, X, formerly known as Twitter, is clearly in the wrong. It should abide by the decision of the eSafety Commissioner. Julie Inman Grant is somebody with immense experience in this field, and X comes to this with a very poor track record. There's a recent report by Reset Australia which looked at the ability of these platforms to spread misinformation in one particular area that was around eating disorders and found that they weren't filtering their ads and indeed they were targeting young people with information that encouraged eating disorders. We know there's political misinformation being spread on these platforms. Simply, they can't be above the law. They need to be abiding by basic standards of decency, not making fun of Australia's content standards in the wake of two terrible tragedies.

SOLLY: Where is the line on this, though? If Elon Musk says that this is attack on free speech, that it's censorship, where do we draw the line? And is it a slippery slope? Andrew Leigh, if we sit there and say, ok, you've got to remove this, where do we go next with that?

LEIGH: I remember when we were doing this in law school, Ross, one of the classic lines was that free speech doesn't extend to the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. There's no notion that free speech is absolute. It needs to be balanced against the interests of, in this case, the victims of these terrible crimes. We also need to make sure that we're strengthening the laws here. Our government is reviewing the Online Safety Act. We want to give more powers to ACMA to scrutinise the systems and processes to make industry rules. Hopefully, the coalition will come along with us on that. They've flip flopped a bit. They need to now come on board and holding big tech to account.

  Labor’s Making Merger Law Fit For A Modern Economy - Op Ed

Economists know two big facts about mergers. On the upside, size can bring economies of scale. Larger firms can deploy their network to produce goods and services more efficiently.

On the downside, monopoly isn’t just an infuriating board game. When firms control a market, they tend to cut back output and raise prices. There’s a reason that much of corporate strategy is devoted to keeping competitors out: when you’re the only player, the game looks a whole lot sweeter.

Encouraging firms to enjoy economies of scale while curbing monopoly power is at the heart of merger laws. Most mergers are not anti-competitive, and can be beneficial to the economy. But some mergers deserve closer scrutiny, to ensure that they are providing real benefits.

Unfortunately, Australia’s current system for scrutinising mergers is unfit for a modern economy. Analysis from the Australian Treasury’s Competition Taskforce finds that there are around 1400 mergers taking place annually. Yet the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission only sees around 300 of these mergers. Three out of four mergers fly under the radar.

This system looks even odder in an international context. Almost every advanced country, including the United States, Japan, Canada and all European Union members, has a system that requires the compulsory notification of mergers. Australia is an outlier in not requiring merger notification. The result is that our competition watchdog is flying blind.

It’s hard to imagine anyone arguing that if we were building a merger approval system from scratch, Australia’s current system is optimal. There are no less than three pathways, which contributes to needless confusion and delays and can create an opportunity for strategic behaviour to avoid detection.  And for the most part it isn’t transparent, with only a fraction of mergers reviewed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission every year done so publicly. There is too little available data on mergers and acquisitions, in an age where companies themselves are relying heavily on data.

Unenforceable And Unnecessary Non-Competes Hold Us Back - Opinion Piece

Seventeen-year-old Charlotte landed her first casual job as a dance teacher. It was her dream job, but she was forced to quit after experiencing harassment.

So she took a job at a different dance studio. Suddenly, a letter arrived in the mail. Charlotte's contract with the first employer had a non-compete clause, which prevented her from working at a competing dance studio within 15km for three years after her employment stopped. The old employer told her she had to quit her new job.

One in five Australian workers now has a non-compete clause in their employment contract. We're not just talking about senior managers. Non-competes are showing up in the employment agreements of boilermakers and disability support workers. When chief executives are forced to take a break between jobs, we call it gardening leave. Now, even gardeners are being compelled to take gardening leave.

Businesses legitimately want to protect their trade secrets and confidential information, as well as their customer lists. But doing so with a non-compete clause is deploying the bluntest tool in the shed.

It stops a worker from moving to any competing business, or from starting a new one. A growing body of evidence suggests the use of non-compete clauses is harming job mobility, innovation and wage growth.

Job-switching is a sign of a dynamic and healthy economy.

For businesses, it means improved productivity as they can attract the talent and skills they need. This is especially important for startups and firms looking to expand.

For workers, it means job satisfaction and higher wages as they move to more productive firms. Research from the e61 Institute finds that younger job switchers can earn on average $7500 more per year than job stayers. Yet despite these benefits, Australia has seen a general decline in job mobility during the past 30 years, part of a broader fall in dynamism since the early 2000s.

Given that, it makes sense to carefully assess any barriers that may be limiting people from moving jobs, limiting businesses from expanding and limiting the flow of innovation in the economy.

Under common law, many non-compete clauses are probably unenforceable. But that's not much help to the typical employee.

Workers may be too afraid to face the risk of a bout of unemployment or a court dispute, so don't move to a better-paying job or start a new business.

It's not as though employers are powerless to prevent their secrets walking out the door. Businesses can use the Corporations Act, which bans employees during or after employment from improperly using a company's information for personal gain, third-party gain, or to cause detriment to the company.

Around the world, many jurisdictions have either banned or restricted the use of non-compete clauses. In the US, five States have bans in place, including California, the home of Silicon Valley. The Albanese Government established the competition task force last year to examine whether Australia's competition laws, policies and institutions remain fit for purpose.

Now, the task force has launched its issues paper Non-Competes and Other Restraints: Understanding the Impacts on Jobs, Business, and Productivity. The issues paper is an open invitation for everyone - businesses, employees, academics, think-tanks - to provide their views.

Already, we know that millions of Australian workers don't have the freedom to quit their jobs and immediately move to a better job.

We know that these restraint clauses don't just apply to the boardroom. They apply to workers in the mail room too.

They are just as likely to apply to the person guarding the carpark as they are to the person guarding trade secrets.

Taking a hard look at non-compete clauses is just one step in our efforts to build a more competitive and dynamic economy.

Originally published in the West Australian on 16 April 2024.

Recent years have seen an explosion in interest in artificial intelligence and big data. The technology is promising, but its use in government rightly makes people nervous. If RoboCop hadn’t persuaded you that letting machines run amok was a bad idea, the Coalition’s Robodebt scandal proved it once and for all.

Yet it’s useful to see areas where artificial intelligence and big data have helped produce better outcomes for citizens, without undermining key ethical values of transparency, privacy and human oversight.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
ABC RADIO CANBERRA DRIVE WITH ROSS SOLLY
WEDNESDAY, 10 APRIL 2024

SUBJECTS: Palestinian statehood, merger reforms, competition policy, Australia’s Indigenous history, British influence and multicultural story.

ROSS SOLLY: Great to have you on the show, Dr. Leigh.

ASSISTANT MINISTER, ANDREW LEIGH: Great to be back with you, Ross.

SOLLY: Just before we talk about this, can I get your thoughts on what Penny Wong had to say last night? About the only way to work towards a long-term peace prospect in the Middle-East is that maybe we should recognise Palestine as a state. What are your thoughts?

LEIGH: Well, I think everyone recognises that the two-state solution is the only lasting way of achieving peace. And this is about building the pathways out of an endless cycle of violence. You only get security and prosperity for both Israelis and Palestinians with a two-state solution. So, while Australia is a respected voice, we're not a central player in the Middle East. Our role is to argue for a humanitarian ceasefire, return of hostages, the protection of civilians, but also to give our support to what the international community has broadly recognised. A two-state solution.

Foreign investment is great, until it becomes a drain

A few years ago, the Australian Taxation Office won a court case against energy giant Chevron that saw the company pay an extra $10bn over the following decade.

That's equal to 10 hospitals, hundreds of schools, or thousands of kilometres of rail.

One way Chevron cut its tax bill was by lending money to itself. Interest payments are tax deductible, so by creating an internal loan from the US parent to its Australian subsidiary, Chevron reduced its taxes.

Over the past two centuries, Australia has benefited greatly from foreign investment. But multinationals still have an obligation to pay their fair share. Multinational companies benefit from Australia's infrastructure and rule of law. It's only fair that they contribute.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
ABC AFTERNOON BRIEFING WITH GREG JENNETT
MONDAY, 8 APRIL 2024

SUBJECTS: Reforms to the Food and Grocery Code, divestiture powers, merger reforms, non-compete clauses.

GREG JENNETT, HOST: So, a mandatory code of conduct is on the way, or soon will be for Woolworths, Coles, Aldi and Metcash. That is the interim recommendation from Craig Emerson. But that represents only a part of the project the Government's doing on competition. Assistant Minister for Competition Andrew Leigh joins us in the studio now. Welcome back to the programme, Andrew. So, a firm recommendation just to clarify the status of Craig Emerson's advice in the Interim Report. He says a firm recommendation. There's no doubt, is there, that the Government will proceed with this mandatory code?

ASSISTANT MINISTER ANDREW LEIGH: Well, we clearly need to go through cabinet and caucus processes, but we're certainly looking very seriously at the important recommendations that Craig Emerson has made. And I was pleased, Greg, that you put that into context. The broader work that we're doing on competition, the ACCC's grocery review, the CHOICE price monitoring to ensure Australians can see where they can get the best deal, the first report of which will be coming out towards the end of June.

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
ABC RADIO MELBOURNE WITH ALI MOORE
MONDAY, 8 APRIL 2024

SUBJECTS: Divestiture powers for competition regulators, the government’s work to improve supermarket competition.

ALI MOORE, HOST: Well, as I said, we've been talking about how to make the supermarkets play fair for a long time. Today, one recommendation, a mandatory code of conduct and you've been hearing about that during the news today with the Interim Report of the Review into the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, which right now, of course, is not mandatory, it's voluntary.

Now, that Review also recommends hefty fines. What difference would they make? And will the government accept the recommendations? Dr Andrew Leigh is the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury. Dr Leigh, welcome to Drive.

ASSISTANT MINISTER ANDREW LEIGH: Thanks, Ali. Great to be with you and your listeners.